Mrugendra Indravadan Mehta vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation 2024 INSC 401 – O XLI R 31 CPC –

Code Of Civil Procedure,1908; Order XLI Rule 31 – The mere omission to frame the points for determination would not vitiate the judgment of the first appellate Court, provided that the first appellate Court recorded its reasons based on the evidence adduced by both parties – Even if the first appellate Court does not separately frame the points for determination arising in the first appeal, it would not prove fatal as long as that Court deals with all the issues that actually arise for deliberation in the said appeal. Substantial compliance with the mandate of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC in that regard is sufficient- Referred to G. Amalorpavam and others vs. R.C. Diocese of Madurai (2006) 3 SCC 224 and Laliteshwar Prasad Singh vs. S.P. Srivastava (D) (2017) 2 SCC 415. (Para 29-30)

Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 – a plot owner who has surrendered his original land for the purposes of the Town Planning Scheme is not even assured of allotment of a reconstituted plot in lieu thereof. In such an event, he is entitled only to compensation. Therefore, there is no guaranteed right vesting in a plot owner who surrendered his land in accordance with the Town Planning Scheme that he would be allotted another plot of land in lieu thereof, much less, a plot of the same area – The preparation or variation of a Town Planning Scheme, the rights in the earlier plots of land would stand extinguished. That being so, such rights, if any, which have become extinct cannot be the basis for a later cause of action- Further reduction of a plot notified in the original Town Planning Scheme is implicit in the general power of variation vesting in the authority under Section 71 of the Act of 1976. (Para 32-38)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *